would have been saved something which looked like haggling-one hon. Gentleman objecting to one Vote and one to another. He would suggest to the Government that they should not proceed further with the Irish Votes that night, as it was quite clear there had been a misunderstanding. He would move that they should now report Progress, and take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." − (Mr. Rylands.)

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON hoped the Committee would adhere to the original arrangement and take these four Votes before it passed to anything else, as he hoped to ask them to take certain other Votes with the view of advancing the Business of Supply.

MR. BIGGAR thought the hon. Baronet had exercised a wise discretion in entering into a compromise with certain. Members on that side of the House, for there was plenty of opportunity to raise several questions on the Votes just agreed to, and he was disposed to have done so but for the compromise suggested. As to the Bankruptcy Vote, the Attorney General for Ireland must know that the Members for Belfast had a very decided opinion in favour of a Local Bankruptcy Bill, and he was sure they would be disappointed if this Vote should be passed in their absence. He knew, of course, that the present Bill could not pass this Session; but still the hon. Gentlemen who were not now present might feel a satisfaction in being able to speak on the subject.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) said, the matter would be discussed on its merits, and he felt sure neither of those hon. Members would wish the Vote postponed on their

account.

sury was to withdraw all Irish Votes except those which were practically unopposed. As to this particular Vote, he did not share the misgivings of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), that certain hon. Gentlemen, not usually very prominent in opposing Votes, would take exception to this one; and as no hon. Member present took any exception to it, he hoped it would be allowed to pass.

MR. CALLAN hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) would withdraw his opposition to this Vote. The Judges were very efficient officers, and he thought of all the Votes this was one to which the fewest objections applied.

MR. BIGGAR knew that the hon. Members for Belfast did desire a Local Bill; and as there was not the least chance of the Bankruptcy Bill becoming law this Session, he did think that those two hon. Gentlemen would be very pleased to have an opportunity of speaking on this subject.

MR. RAMSAY regretted the waste of time, the more that it had arisen from the extreme courtesy of the hon. Gentleman, and his desire to prevent complaints. He thought they might pass this Vote; because, though they had had half-an-hour's discussion, no one had anything to say against the Vote itself.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA said, the Vote was one to which no reasonable objection could be made; and he therefore hoped the Motion would be withdrawn, and the Vote allowed to pass.

MR. RYLANDS asked for leave to withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PARNELL said, there was a question of considerable importance involved in this Vote-the question of Local Bankruptcy Courts in Ireland. He was very anxious to discuss it; but he would give way in response to the appeals of his hon. Friends, and so was, practically, giving up his chance of discussing this matter in that Session; for though the Attorney General had a Bill on the Paper, he never got a day for his measures, so that it was not very likely

to come on.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(10.) £1,195, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry, Ireland.

CLASS VI.-SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES FOR CHARITABLE AND OTHER PUR

POSES.

(11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £289,772, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for Superannuation and Retired Allowances to Persons formerly employed in the Public Service, and for Compassionate or other Special Allowances and Gratuities awarded by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury."

MR. WHITWELL hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would not take so important a Vote at that hour, and moved to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.". (Mr. Whitwell.)

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

hoped the Committee would not agree to the Motion. Although the Vote was an important one, it was never discussed, for it was only carrying out the pledges given by the Government to its Civil servants, and he could not conceive the hon. Member could wish that to be diminished or altered.

MR. MONK said, the grounds of the Motion were not quite understood. They had been steadily progressing through Supply for the last seven hours, and now one of the most important measures of the Session was about to be brought into Committee-the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. His hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) seemed to think,

that the Committee should take into its serious consideration how far they should advance in the direction in which they were now going in this matter of superannuation. Although they might not be able to obtain any reduction in the Vote, yet he thought public attention should be drawn to this question of superannuation and allowances; and, as that could not be done at 12 o'clock at night, he should object to their proceeding further at that time.

Question put.

The Committee divided:-Ayes 30; Noes 120: Majority 90.-(Div. List, No. 113.)

MR. RYLANDS said, that as he now observed the Leader of the House in his place, he would appeal to him not to go any further at that hour. They had been sitting in Committee of Supply for many hours-ever since 5 o'clock. If the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill were to be taken at all to-night, it could not be taken later than the present time.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE

QUER hoped that the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would be taken that night. He was sorry they had not made so much progress in Committee as they might have done. However, after taking that one Vote, he proposed to report Progress, and to go on with the Customs and In

land Revenue Bill.

Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;

Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL-[BILL 150.]

could be taken at any hour. He might, technically, be right; but he certainly could not think that was the proper way to discuss it. He was sure it would facilitate Business if they were now allowed to report Progress, and to take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill.

MR. WHITWELL thought that this subject could not be properly discussed. at that hour. It was not right to take a Vote of £500,000 on a subject of this kind at that time; by so doing, the Committee pledged itself to pay large amounts of superannuation to persons who would receive it for the first time. It was time

Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 20th May.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

PART I.-Customs.

Clauses 1 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
PART II.-Taxes.

Clause 15 (Grant of duties of income tax.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. COURTNEY observed, that he had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to say recently, in answer to a question from an hon. Member, that any person who occupied agricultural land, and did not make a profit, could escape altogether payment of Income Tax. He could not see how that was reconcilable with this clause of the Bill, which was a repetition of the clause always inserted in the Income Tax Bills ever since the imposition of the tax. He wished to know whether the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman was reconcilable with the clause? He should also like to be informed whether, if, as he had said, a farmer who did not make profit would escape being assessed for Income Tax altogether, he would, on the other hand, if he made additional profit, be bound to pay Income Tax upon more than the amount of half his rent? Could he, in such a case, be charged in addition to that rent? He should have thought that the principle of assessment was that the assessment of half the rent was to cover good and bad years alike, and was to be paid in all cases. If a farmer were not to be taken at his assessment of half his rent in England, and one-third in Scotland, when he made no profit, he thought some explanation should be given to the Committee of what happened when he made a large profit.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER) said, that the answer he had given on the former occasion was made by him from instructions he received. That answer he thought to be accurate. But if the hon. Member would allow him to consider the operation of this particular clause of the Bill, he should be happy to give him his opinion. As at present advised, he thought that his former answer was accurate-that if a farmer did not make any profit out of his farm he would, then, escape the payment of Income Tax. Still, it might be that the answer was not accurate; and he should like his hon. Friend to give him a short time to consider it, in connection with this Bill, before he pledged himself to the accuracy of the answer. If his hon. Friend would repeat the question, either in the course of that evening, or at some other time, after he had considered the matter, he should be happy to give him his opinion with regard to it.

MR. RYLANDS considered that the reply of the hon. and learned Attorney General had placed the Committee in a most extraordinary position. The mode of assessment in the case of farmers for every 20s. of the annual value of the occupation of the land implied that a farmer, however large his profit might be, should not be charged on any larger sum than that determined by the amount of his rent; and, on the other hand, if he made a loss, that he should not be charged less than the sum provided for by the Act; and, in this way, he had always understood the amount chargeable upon farmers to be fixed and permanent, inasmuch as, unlike the charge upon ordinary trade profits, it did not fluctuate. But in what position had the Committee been placed? The Government, through their mouthpiece, the most learned authority in the House, had told the Committee that the clause was not understood, and that with regard to its meaning no answer could then be given. In answer to the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), the Attorney General had asked that the Committee would allow this matter to go forward, and had promised at some future time, perhaps in answer to a Question put upon the Paper, to give the result of his mature judgment upon the point raised by the hon. Member. But, by that time, he (Mr. Rylands) wished to point out that the Bill would be passed and the clause enacted. If it was to be understood that during periods the most flourishing for agriculture, when farmers might make incomes considerably over the amount represented by half their rental, they were not to pay any more than the amount chargeable by this mode of assessment, the adoption of such a principle was, in his opinion, grossly unfair to other classes of the Income Tax paying community. Unless the hon. and learned Gentleman could tell the Committee what was the meaning of the clause, he hoped the hon. Member for Liskeard would move to report Progress, in order that the Committee might not be placed in the position of passing a clause of the meaning of which they knew nothing.

MR. SAMPSON LLOYD said, as far as he remembered, the terms of the present Bill were precisely the same as those of the Acts hitherto in force; and he wished to point out that the difficulty

raised by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had nothing to do with the question whether the Committee should proceed to pass the clause then under consideration in the usual way. The assessment under Schedule B was very much in the same position as that under Schedule D, by which a man assessed at more than his profits had a right to show, on appeal, that he had been over assessed. The Attorney General had expressed his opinion that a farmer had this right of appeal, and that the question was determinable by the Courts of Law. He (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) trusted that the clause would not meet with opposition, as all previous enactments had been in the same form as that now presented to the Committee. MR. THOMSON HANKEY had always understood that the Schedule referred to by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) was agreed to as a compromise in view of the exceeding difficulty of ascertaining the profits of a farmer in the same way as those of a mechanic. But the Attorney General had put the Committee into confusion, by saying that he did not understand the meaning of the clause; surely, therefore, it would be better to report Progress, in order to give the Government and the Attorney General time to consider what it really meant. He had no objection to the clause as previously understood; but if a new interpretation was to be put upon it, it should be made perfectly clear.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER) thought that as the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had only called attention to the question as he was on the point of leaving the House, he might have been excused from expressing an opinion without some further consideration. But he begged to protest against the statement of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Thomson Hankey), that he had put the Committee in any difficulty with regard to this question; for if there existed any doubt as to the proper construction of the clause, it certainly was not he who had caused it. The question of the liability of farmers, under the circumstances indicated, would have to be considered by the Courts of Law; and all that was required of him, and all that could be expected of him, was to express an opinion as to what construction would

be placed upon the clause by those Courts. The whole question turned upon the meaning of the words "annual value of the occupation." Some hon. Members were of opinion that the annual value of the occupation of land was the amount of the rent; but to that conclusion he could not assent, because if he found sufficient evidence that the rent was not the annual value of the land, but that, on the contrary, the tenant had been making nothing by it for a considerable period, he should conclude that the rent was very much higher than the value of the occupation of the land, and that the tenant who made nothing out of it, or who made less than the rent, would not be liable to pay the tax. That view might not be a correct one, and the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) might be able to satisfy him that it was not. What he had stated, in answer to the Question put, not the other day but some time ago, was that-"If a tenant did not make any profit out of his farm he could escape payment of the Income Tax," and to that opinion he still adhered.

MR. RAMSAY thought, whatever might be the result of the discussion, that the question involved, and the opinion given by the hon. and learned Attorney General, were of very great importance. Whatever might have been the law, the practice had always been to charge farmers in respect of the rent paid for the occupation of the land, and from that practice he had never known of any case of appeal. Now, if it were the intention of the Government, as he understood from the observations of the Attorney General, that farmers should, in future, have the right of appeal in cases where it was found that no profit had accrued from the land in their occupation, that right ought to be made so clear as not to admit of doubt. Upon these grounds, therefore, and for the purpose of enabling the Government to make such change in the terms of the clause as would provide that farmers either should or should not have the right of appeal against an assessment in respect of the rent which they paid, he thought that the Government should agree to report Progress. doubt, the hon. and learned Attorney General was quite correct in his view of the law; but it was of great consequence that the question should be definitely

No